Zé do Rock wrote:1) I spell geographic names in the languages i speak, and as a rule they are the names by which the locals call their country or area. Europe has several names, but the most common one is Europa. Most countries in Europe say it with A. The name for the satellite of Jupiter is the same. But when somebody says, "Tomorrow i go to Europe", nobody understands the sentence in the sense that that person has the intention of travelling to the moon of Jupiter in the next morning.

Sure, but English speakers make the distinction and are used to it. Why does English have to be like other European languages again? It's not one of your conlangs, despite how you treat it. Don't be surprised if we Anglophones are a little confused that you would intentionally introduce ambiguity into the language while claiming you want to erase it.

Zé do Rock wrote:2) Yeah, i know how it works, but it seems that my autopilot is not good at it, sometimes my eyes see an E or a U at the beginning of a word and my brain forgets that it could be a diphthong.

But, I mean, the word doesn't start with a /j/ in other European languages, so … reform English pronunciation, too?

Zé do Rock wrote:3) Since there are many names of countries and localities that have a cardinal point in them, as North Korea or East Timor, the cardinal points are also internationalized: as a rule, the names ar in the original language, but the cardinal points are the same in all the languages iuse. Norde Korea, Este Timor. There is a problem that is only a problem for non anglos, for example when you want to book a flight in Brazil or in Germany, you never know if you should type in the name of the country/city in the language of the country where you are, in english or in the name by which the country or area is calld in the language of the peeple who live der. Some programmes understand what you mean no matter what you type in, others dont understand when you spell München, because they just know Munich, or vice-versa.

Your changes to the compass directions don't solve the "Munich/München" problem. Are you planning to introduce universal names for every locality, too?

Zé do Rock wrote:But finns shouldnt be too outraged about how people from other areas call the people or the region, scandinavians or nordic - or, if thats too bad too, those mostly blond people near the North Pole: in Germany the saxons are the most disreputable, nobody likes their dialect, and the finns call all germans 'the saxons'... (and the people in ex-Jugoslavia call germans the 'shvab', wich is how germans say to the suabians, and they are notorius in germany, because they work all the time, or at least thats the stereotype). In South America the most notorious country is Paraguay, so it would be the same as calling all south americans 'paraguayans'...

Yeah, well, exonyms do have a tendency to be inaccurate and as such offensive. That's why it's a better idea to use endonyms instead, at least in public discussions for nations for which no well-established neutral term exists or when the exonym would be confusing. But if a well-established neutral term exists or the endonym would be more confusing than the exonym, it shouldn't piss anyone off to use that. The problem is that neither "Scandinavian" nor "Nordic" are neutral terms when applied to Finns. Technically, neither is "Finland" a neutral term for the country, but nobody cares about that because it's so well-established and has been repurposed by Finns to be seen as neutral thanks to it being the term used in English and not just Swedish and Russian.

Finns calling Germany "Saksa" may very well be offensive to Germans who live in Germany, but even Finnish citizens of German descent refer to themselves in Finnish as "Suomen saksalaiset" or other similar names, and the term "saksalaissyntyinen" (German-born) has no negative connotations whatsoever; being an ethnic German may be seen negatively by some people, but none of the ethnic Germans in Finland themselves have a problem with Germany being called "Saksa" as far as I'm aware. Neither do the majority of ethnic Russians or Swedes in Finland have a problem with their heritage being called "venäläinen" and "ruotsalainen" respectively, at least judging by the fact that they refer to themselves by those terms.

Even you yourself said this:

Zé do Rock wrote:as a rule, the names ar in the original language

While most Finns almost certainly agree that using "Suomi" in English is pretty ridiculous thanks to "Finland" being a well-established neutral term, that shouldn't mean we get no say in which countries we wish to be lumped together with. You wouldn't call Finland part of the Slavosphere, so you shouldn't call it a part of Scandinavia either. Officially it is one of the Nordic countries, so calling it a Nordic country has to be fine, but at least in my opinion calling us Nordic people or Scandinavian is where the line has to be drawn.

Yes, Swedish is a co-official language and we're all forced to learn it at school while Russian has no official status, but that's only because we're still bent over for Sweden even after a hundred years of independence, and because the elite at the time of independence was Swedish in spite of Finland being a part of Russia back then. Many see bending over for Sweden as a good thing, and in most ways it definitely is better than bending over for Russia, but that's beside the point.

~

And then a question about cases:1) Does any language have a case denoting a state far away from something, or specifically moving to/from far away from something?2) If so, what is it called? Especially the one denoting movement from far away? The movement to a relative faraway location is probably just ablative in any case, so logically the one denoting the state of being far away would be called abessive (but that generally means absence of something; the two meanings can easily overlap, though, so it makes sense). So, would the opposite of ablative be abelative?

Yeah, it's kind of a conlang-related question, but it's more general than just that so I figured I'd post it in this thread anyway.

Dormouse559 wrote:Sure, but English speakers make the distinction and are used to it. Why does English have to be like other European languages again? It's not one of your conlangs, despite how you treat it. Don't be surprised if we Anglophones are a little confused that you would intentionally introduce ambiguity into the language while claiming you want to erase it.

I wonder if anglos get really that confused, after all you see more and more original names at airports, maps, and i've never heard people complaining about it. And wat i'm doing is nothing new, it is just the streamlining of an existing trend.

Sometimes it might lead to an (at least theoretical) ambiguity, sometimes it leads to disambiguation: quite a few people took the wrong train in Italy, they wanted to go to Monaco and ended up in Munich or the other way round, because in italian both 'Monaco' and 'Munich' ar 'Monaco'. Now (in my sistem) you know that 'Milano' is the city in Italy, 'Milan' the village in Illinois.

Zé do Rock wrote:2) Yeah, i know how it works, but it seems that my autopilot is not good at it, sometimes my eyes see an E or a U at the beginning of a word and my brain forgets that it could be a diphthong.

But, I mean, the word doesn't start with a /j/ in other European languages, so … reform English pronunciation, too?

Geografical names ar spelled in the original, the pronunciation can be the original pronunciation or you can also pronounce them according to what the spelling sistem of your own language suggests. You can say /eu'ropa/, as most europeans say it, or you can as an anglo say /'jur@p@/ or /ju'roup@/, it's up to you...

Dormouse559 wrote:Your changes to the compass directions don't solve the "Munich/München" problem. Are you planning to introduce universal names for every locality, too?

There are thousands of cities and towns in Germany whose names remain unchanged in other languages, and only one that has an english form, München/Munich, in italian half a dozen change, still thousands remain the same. The names of american cities ar all in the original when you write in german (in the old times they spelld 'Neu York', but they changed it to the original New York, as i would hav done). Spanish has 'Nueva York', but all the others keep their original name. That is to say, changing geographical names in another language isnt the rule, it is the exception.

The use of the same word in all languages for the cardinal points solvs the problem with countries and regions that have a cardinal point in their names. If you'r looking in a list for East Timor in any other language, or if you're looking for a flite to that country, you know you'll find it at E, 'Este Timor', and not at T, as in portugase 'Timor Leste'. The problem with Munich/München is solved with the measure that we spell 'Minga', which is how the local bavarians call their city...

The names of american cities ar all in the original when you write in german (in the old times they spelld 'Neu York', but they changed it to the original New York, as i would hav done).

I'll agree that it's getting out of fashion, but I still have an atlas here that spells "San Franzisko" (which is how we still pronounce it, despite using the English spelling). And it is most definitely in "Kalifornien", not in "California".

And while you're right that we don't have a lot of exonyms for American places, we do have lots of exonyms in active use for places in Europe.

The use of the same word in all languages for the cardinal points solvs the problem with countries and regions that have a cardinal point in their names. If you'r looking in a list for East Timor in any other language, or if you're looking for a flite to that country, you know you'll find it at E, 'Este Timor', and not at T, as in portugase 'Timor Leste'. The problem with Munich/München is solved with the measure that we spell 'Minga', which is how the local bavarians call their city...

Usually I'm aware which language I'm using to communicate, so picking the right name isn't a big problem.

And in fact, I tried that myself, when I buy a train ticket, I can tell the machine that I want to go to "Reichenberg" or to "Liberec", and I get a ticket for the same connection. Magic!

Vlürch wrote:Yeah, well, exonyms do have a tendency to be inaccurate and as such offensive. That's why it's a better idea to use endonyms instead, at least in public discussions for nations for which no well-established neutral term exists or when the exonym would be confusing. But if a well-established neutral term exists or the endonym would be more confusing than the exonym, it shouldn't piss anyone off to use that.

i dont like the term 'america' and 'american' for the country USA, as if canadis, peruvis and brazilis wernt amerikis, but of course i cant protest all the time that europis and USis use it that way - i'd get quite tired...

the question is: 'skandinavia' isn't a good word for the countries, and it seems that some people in that region don't like the term 'nordic' either, so how should we call the group of countries that encompass danmark, finland, norway and sweden? you mite say that we dont need a word for it, since finnland has no relationship with the other mentiond countries. but even if finns hav a very difrent language and hav in sevral aspects a difrent culture (tango!), they also hav similarities, for instance the geographic localization, the economy, and politically finland is part of the EU, while norway isnt... the least corrupt country of the world, acording to transparency international, is denmark, and the second least corrupt is finland, and i don't think thats a coincidence.

i suppose that if i make a round-trip to denmark, norway, sweden and finland, and i'm talking to a skandinavian, i'll say "I'll do a round trip in scandinavia and finland", but if i'm talking to a frenchman or a venezuelan, i'll keep saying "i'll do a round trip in scandinavia". but of course when i write, i will use 'skandinavia' in the local sense, as i do with any geographic name, so in this case i'd say '...round trip in skandinavia and finland, later 'skandinavia and suomi'.

i dont like the term 'america' and 'american' for the country USA, as if canadians, peruvians and brazilians weren't americans, but of course i can't protest all the time that europis and USis use it that way - i'd get quite tired...

Vlürch wrote:Finns calling Germany "Saksa" may very well be offensive to Germans who live in Germany, but even Finnish citizens of German descent refer to themselves in Finnish as "Suomen saksalaiset" or other similar names,

yeah, sure, but they dont have many options, do they...? and i dont think many swiss have problems with the word 'alemán' or 'allemand' for germans, even if the word comes from alemannen, and these are the people from southwest germany and from germanophone switzerland.

the question is: 'skandinavia' isn't a good word for the countries, and it seems that some people in that region don't like the term 'nordic' either, so how should we call the group of countries that encompass danmark, finland, norway and sweden?

You answered this yourself:

scandinavia and finland

Or if you absolutely must have them under one label, the Nordic countries. I don't think there's that many bad connotations with 'Nordic countries' as there is with 'Nordic people'.

i dont like the term 'america' and 'american' for the country USA, as if canadians, peruvians and brazilians weren't americans, but of course i can't protest all the time that europis and USis use it that way - i'd get quite tired...

The reason why calling Finland 'Scandinavia' is so wrong is that Finland is not part of Scandinavia. The US is part of America, England is part of the UK, and the people who gave the name 'Saksa' to Germany were from Germany. I'd be fine with it if there was a language where Finns were called Tavastians or something.

you're right - i thought: stuttgart? the same. frankfurt? the same. hamburg? the same. berlin? the same. but i forgot cologne, nuremberg... still, most names on the list are probably fully unknown for anglis. and for germans too... inglishe wikipedia knows that there is a city called dinkelsbühl, but doesn't know of a city called dinkespithel. and this name doesn't appear inside the article either...

Usually I'm aware which language I'm using to communicate, so picking the right name isn't a big problem.

Zé do Rock wrote:I wonder if anglos get really that confused, after all you see more and more original names at airports, maps, and i've never heard people complaining about it. And wat i'm doing is nothing new, it is just the streamlining of an existing trend.

Here's what people are confused by: how presumptuous you're being. Why do you presume to change English when you still make basic grammatical mistakes, have holes in your vocabulary and clearly don't know the true pronunciation of many words? Why do you presume that an English that's easier for speakers of other European languages is ideal? English is used as a lingua franca, but it does not exist for that purpose. It's a natural language, and its quirks and complications may make it harder to learn, but that's what you get when you use a natural language as a lingua franca. Try approaching the language on its own terms instead of being so condescending as to think you know how to make it a better language somehow.

How about concentrating on Europan if an international European language is that important to you?

Geografical names ar spelled in the original, the pronunciation can be the original pronunciation or you can also pronounce them according to what the spelling sistem of your own language suggests. You can say /eu'ropa/, as most europeans say it, or you can as an anglo say /'jur@p@/ or /ju'roup@/, it's up to you...

Of course, only the third pronunciation is valid in English. The first one includes sounds that don't even exist in many dialects.

Also, why does your house style suddenly imply three different pronunciations here, independent of accent?

Zé do Rock wrote:There are thousands of cities and towns in Germany whose names remain unchanged in other languages, and only one that has an english form, München/Munich, in italian half a dozen change, still thousands remain the same.

Then why bring up Munich in the first place?

Zé do Rock wrote:The names of american cities ar all in the original when you write in german (in the old times they spelld 'Neu York', but they changed it to the original New York, as i would hav done). Spanish has 'Nueva York', but all the others keep their original name. That is to say, changing geographical names in another language isnt the rule, it is the exception.

The use of the same word in all languages for the cardinal points solvs the problem with countries and regions that have a cardinal point in their names. If you'r looking in a list for East Timor in any other language, or if you're looking for a flite to that country, you know you'll find it at E, 'Este Timor', and not at T, as in portugase 'Timor Leste'. The problem with Munich/München is solved with the measure that we spell 'Minga', which is how the local bavarians call their city...

Zé do Rock wrote:i dont like the term 'america' and 'american' for the country USA, as if canadis, peruvis and brazilis wernt amerikis

Firstly, in English it's /kæneɪdi(j)ənz/, /pɛɹuviənz/, /bɹəzɪliənz/ and /əmɛɹɪkənz/. Well the exact pronunciation will vary, but the point is that all those words end in /(i)ənz/ '(i)an' because that denotes an adjective for the people of a particular country. I don't know what your spelling system would use, but regardless, that -is ending is completely wrong.

Secondly, I've heard this complaint before, and it seems (in my experience) to come mostly from Latin Americans. I don't get the argument though. Every language calls things differently, including country names, continents, and people groups. As a Canadian, it doesn't bother me that American refers to the people of the USA (or things related to the USA), nor that America is the common short form for the country because the full name is United States of America. It's second nature for me to say Canada is in North America, and therefore I'm a North American. It's also second nature for me to say the Americas to refer to North, Central and South America. Upon learning that in Spanish, the adjective estadounidense is used, I didn't immediately say "but it should be americano*". That's just how English works, so complaining about it makes no sense in my opinion.

*I know that some use americano to refer to an American, but according to Wiktionary, that's really only in the US, and the correct global term is estadounidense.

Zé do Rock wrote:Somehow i repeated the message, then i wanted to delete it, but i can only delete the text - is there a way to delete the message?

At the top right of all your messages, there should be a few buttons, including a pencil icon to edit the message, and an X to delete it.

Naava wrote:I don't think there's that many bad connotations with 'Nordic countries' as there is with 'Nordic people'.

I was thinking the same thing, and was going to mention it. I wonder why this is the case? For me, 'Nordic people' connotes only those who speak a North Germanic language, while 'Nordic country' does include Finland (and I think Estonia?).

Naava wrote:The US is part of America

It's better to say "the US is part of the Americas / the US is part of North America". As far as I know, in English, America solely is the short form for the United States of America. Thus, saying "the US is part of America" doesn't really make sense.

It's better to say "the US is part of the Americas / the US is part of North America". As far as I know, in English, America solely is the short form for the United States of America. Thus, saying "the US is part of America" doesn't really make sense.

dEhiN wrote:Firstly, in English it's /kæneɪdi(j)ənz/, /pɛɹuviənz/, /bɹəzɪliənz/ and /əmɛɹɪkənz/. Well the exact pronunciation will vary, but the point is that all those words end in /(i)ənz/ '(i)an' because that denotes an adjective for the people of a particular country. I don't know what your spelling system would use, but regardless, that -is ending is completely wrong.

No, but you see, it is we who have been wrong this whole time, as Zé revealed so helpfully in the wanderlust thread:

Zé do Rock wrote:thats wy i invented the a-i-o-u sistem: -a for femminin, -i for neutral, -o for masculin and -u for "thingly". so i dont hav to think about it, do enny reserch, i no that the woman from tuvalu is a tuvala, the person a tuvali, and the language is tuvaliano. the inhabbitants of barcelona ar the barcelonis, the male inhabbitants of irkutsk in siberia the irkutskos. and i use this scheem for all my sistems.